<0 
4 
PINETUM BRITANNICUM. 
regarding - which Loudon mentions the following particulars. “ The plant in the Horticultural Society’s 
garden, named there P. Montheragenfs, which was received from M. Godefroy about 1829, forms a hunted 
bufh 3 feet high and 4 or 5 feet broad. It is a grafted plant, and its hunted appearance may be chiefly 
owing to the fcion having fwelled to a much greater thicknefs than the hock, and to the buds having been 
dehroyed by infects for feveral years pah. The buds are fmall, about 2-8ths of an inch long, blunt-pointed, 
about 3-i6ths of an inch broad, brown, and covered with refin. The leaves are chiefly three in a fheath, 
and from 2 inches to 3 inches long, with fhort black fheaths.” (Arboretum, iv. p. 2269.) 
The buds here correfpond with none of the fpecies we have been fpeaking of, and we may be 
permitted to doubt whether they were not abnormally fmall in confequence of the injuries they had fuhained 
in previous years. We have been unable to find any trace of this plant now in the Royal Horticultural 
Society’s garden at Chifwick. 
To purfue the fynonymy of P. Californica, however, we find that it paffed without alteration through the 
hands of Antoine (his work as a rule containing neither new matter nor new ideas); but when we reach 
Endlicher (1847), we find it complicated by a defcription of a fpecies, P. Sinclairii , which had in the 
meantime (1841) appeared in Hooker and Walker-Arnott’s Botany of Captain Beechey s Voyage in the 
Bloffom. Thefe gentlemen remark that that fpecies may prove to be the P. Calif ornica of Loifeleur, but 
fay that the defcription of it is too incomplete to allow them to decide; and Endlicher adopts their 
fuggeffion or arrives at it on confiderations of his own. Having come to that conclufion he wholly 
abandons Loifeleur’s imperfect defcription, and without a word of caution or notice (which we find not well 
done in any one, but leaf! of all in fuch an eminent man as Endlicher) he adopts Hooker and Arnott’s 
defcription of P. Sinclairii , merely condenfing it a little, and gives their locality verbatim. Here are the 
parallel paffages proving what we fay:— 
Hooker and Arnott, ‘ Botany of Beeci-iey’s Voyage in the Blossom.’ 
Pinus Sinclairii; foliis ternis acicularibus elongatis gracilibus, fupra 
canaliculatis dorfo convexis, margine afperis, Jirobilis bafi obliquis ped- 
alibus oblongis , fquamis elongatis cuneatis apicibus craffes elevato-tetra- 
gonis, centro tuberculo fpinulofo uncinato inftructis. 
This covers the hills from Monterey to Carmelo and to Punta 
Pinos. 
Endlicher’s ‘Synopsis Coniferarium,’ p. 162. 
Taeda foliis ternis elongatis gracilibus, Jirobilis (pedalibms) ob¬ 
longis obliquis apophyfi elevato pyramidata tetragona umbone brevi 
uncinato. 
Habitat in California in collibus a Monterey ad Carmelo et ad 
Punta Pinos. 
But whilft we object to this mode of treating fynonymy, we muff alfo demur to the juftness of the 
conclufion itfelf at which Endlicher arrived. Loifeleur gives the fize of the cone of Pinus Calf ornica as 
a third larger than that of P. pinafer. Hooker and Arnott’s defcription of P. Sinclairii makes it nearly 
three times that of P. pinafer. It may be that Endlicher has fpeculated upon Loifeleur having made a 
miftake and faid a third when he meant to have faid three times, and thought that by correcting this miftake 
everything would be reconciled. But if any fuch idea influenced him he fliould have faid fo. If not, the 
difference in fize remains unaccounted for; and it feems too great even for the ftartling difference in the 
dimenfions, both of cones and leaves, which we do occafionally meet with both in Californian and Mexican 
fpecies of Conifers. 
Lindley and Gordon’s fuggeffion ( Journ . Hort. Soc ., v. p. 816) that P. Sinclairii is fynonymous with 
Hartweg’s P. Benthamiana finds more favour in our eyes. The figure of the cone given by Hooker and 
Arnott is fo furprifingly fimilar as to be almoft identical with that of Hartweg’s fpecies given by Gordon 
(Journ. Hort. Soc., iv. p. 213), except in the fize, which is nearly double. On the other hand, the leaves of 
P. Benthamiana , as figured, are much larger than thofe of P. Sinclairii. 
The last author who has given an opinion on the fubject is Carriere, who, rejecting Lindley and 
Gordon’s fuppofition, confiders that “ Pinus Calf ornica (Loifel.), adunca (Bofc), Sinclairiana [miftake for 
Sinclairii ] (Hooker), and Coulteri (Don), may all be only one and the fame fpecies.” In fupport of this 
view he obferves, “The cone of P. Sinclairiana [,Sinclairii ], figured by Sir William Hooker, appears to 
me very near, both in fize and form, that of P. Coulteri (Don), although the apophyfis of the fcales be lefs 
projecting 
